nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net napsal(a):
> De : "Jeremy Katz" <katzj(a)redhat.com>
> Actually, nothing says that additional repos can't have their own
> specspo-type package as well.
This is considerably upping the bar to creation of a new repository, and making
impossible the common "collect rpms, launch createrepo" workflow
> Also, moving the translations into the spec files is pretty painful
> also. It makes the spec file _much_ more complicated to actually edit
Note I'm not advocating pushing the translations in the spec file, but somewhere
within the package (could be a SourceX-like declaration referencing a detached translation
file)
> and work with and it also means the package has to be rebuilt to get
> translations of package metadata added.
Packages need to be rebuilt anyway when the localisation teams translate the app (and
translators complain we don't do it)
Also how often are Description and Summary changed? Pretty never in my experience. That
would mean a new Fedora package would be rebuilt a few times for translations just after
hitting the repository and then never again. (and this can be hidden to users by pushing
new packages to rawhide-only the time translators work on them)
> All of the above said, specspo probably _isn't_ the
> right answer...
Yes, it was hyped as necessary to make translator work easy, and now you have translators
complaining of it.
Regards,
I think that the main problem is that those files are really to big. 8k+
strings is really great load. It would be better if the specspo files
were divided correspondingly to categories of the packages or maybe
alphabetically into a few smaller files.
About the description in the package itself. Just an idea. I would not
try to get the translation into package but try to look for it in the
package and if it is there update corresponding string at the .po file.
--
Marek Zukal
Jabber: zippy(a)jabbim.cz